Freedom Threatened By Plan To Federalize Local Government In Florida

Comments Off on Freedom Threatened By Plan To Federalize Local Government In Florida

A new initiative by the federal government called Seven50, a cousin of Agenda 21, seeks to relieve local governments nationwide of direct representation by and for local citizens in matters of education, infrastructure, and population.

Indian River County Commissioner Bob Solari (772- 226-1442) is putting out an urgent call to attend a special Indian River County Commission meeting concerning this topic on Tuesday, December 18 at 9 a.m. in the Vero Beach County Chambers (1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, FL.) Though Alabama already has passed legislation to curb the Seven50 agenda, seven southeastern counties along Florida’s coastline from Miami to Vero Beach threaten to place their citizens’ lives under control of HUD and other federal agencies by backing this “diversity” proposal.

Morphing the highly unpopular Security and Prosperity Partnership to Agenda 21 and finally into Seven50, our federal government is hell-bent on removing any local control and input from average American citizens concerning what they can do with their own land, private property, local schools, and local infrastructures from bridges to meeting houses. “What we want to be when we grow up,” says Marcelor Camblor-Cutsaimanis in a video interview with Nancy Ferre on PBS as she attempts to explain the benefits of Seven50. Of course, the public TV host heaps praise upon this blatant attempt by the feds to exercise total control over the lives of Americans.

Whether you live near Southern Florida’s east coast or took part in Alabama’s efforts to rein in this dreadful plan, you must inform your neighbors about the dangers of Seven50. The UN and the Obama administration have been relentless in their efforts to marginalize our freedoms. A puff piece about this fifty year, UN initiative to destroy local and county governance claims Seven50 is “good” for us given the ”…realization that local governments and civic groups can’t effectively tackle [their] problems and needs in isolation.” Well, just ask the still-suffering inhabitants of ocean front towns along the New Jersey and New York coastlines how they feel about the FEMA response to the destruction of their homes and businesses by Hurricane Sandy.

Counties across the nation are being REGIONALIZED to circumvent the structure and policies of local governance . It is an insidious program operating under the radar. Why didn’t the PBS interviewer ask activist Cutsaimanis about the FEMA performance in Staten Island, where residents are being drowned in federal red tape and frustrated by buck-passing and bureaucratic inefficiency?

If you live near the area, pleased attend the Vero Beach, FL county commission meeting on Dec. 18. And wherever you live, find out if Seven50 threatens to supplant local governance, turning your town or county into a “protectorate” of the federal government.

[url=]Western Journalism[/url]


20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN Law of the Sea treaty

Comments Off on 20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN Law of the Sea treaty

The 20 Republicans who are apparently set to uphold the treaty, or who have not yet decided, are Enzi, McConnell, Hutchison, Toomey, Johanns, Ayotte, Graham, McCain, Lugar, Kirk, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Isakson, Grassley, Portman, Corker (TN, Cochran, Brown, and Alexander (TN).

This is a continually developing story that is changing on an hour by hour basis. For the latest information on who in the Senate has decided to oppose the treaty, consult late breaking articles here and here.

In 1983 President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST outright due to encroachments on U.S. sovereignty. Thus, the question arises as to why these 20 Republicans would be indicating support for a treaty that Reagan saw as an international attempt to usurp American sovereignty and thus supersede the U.S. Constitution.

As another hearing is scheduled for this Thursday at 10:00am on the Senate floor and we get closer to a June vote on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), I would like to call out attention on the remaining 20 Republican Senators that have not yet signed the letter to Sen. Reid which would block the passage of this bill. Yes I wrote about this few weeks ago in hopes that RedStaters would help prod their Senators into getting on board to stop this UN agenda.

There has been some success since my last diary, probably due to your efforts, as 3 more Senators have signed the letter so only 7 more signatures are needed. I’d like to add that Jake Walker wrote an excellent RS diary on same subject on May 30th with more substance than mine of just a plea to block it, that was very informative and provided links to the Senator’s websites to voice your opinion: This may be our final push to kill the bill so please help out and pressure your Republican Senators to keep our nation’s soverignty intact.

Another positive development was the House passed a bill on May 18 that  barred millions of dollars from funding LOST organizations that the administration had hoped to obtain. The vote was 229-193 and was the first formal vote in either Chamber.

This is an updated list of the 27 Senators that have signed the letter:

Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)–Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)–Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)–Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)—-David Vitter (R-La.)–Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)—John Cornyn (R-Texas)–Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)–Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)–John Boozman (R-Ark.)–Rand Paul (R-Ky.)–Jim Risch (R-Idaho)–  Mike Lee (R-Utah)–Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)–Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)–Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)–John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)–Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)–John Thune (R-S.D.)–Richard Burr (R-N.C.)–Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)–Dan Coats (R-Ind.)–John Hoeven (R-N.D.)–Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)–Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)–Jim Moran (R-Kansas)–Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

Some of the more obvious names missing from the list are: Sen. Mike Enzi  (R-Wyo.), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), Sen. Pat Toomey (R.-Pa), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R. N.H.), Sen. Mike Johanns (R. Neb) and of course Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) to name a few.

I’m disappointed that I haven’t heard any conservative talk radio shows speak out on the issue, like Rush, Hannity and Levin since their listeners could help in this effort. Maybe I missed it on their previous shows, but now would be a good time to shout it out loud and often.
Lastly in somewhat related matter, as in the UN’s continual grab for power, the House lawmakers also started discussions on a UN proposal that would give it more control over the Internet, which certainly won’t gain any traction. So can we just quit the United Nations already or reign in its charter? May I at least suggest a change of venue to a less chummy location, say China, Russia or maybe even Afghanistan or Iraq. Less meetings equals less mischief in my mind.

Executive Orders And The New American Sovyet

Comments Off on Executive Orders And The New American Sovyet

Dear Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, et. al;

Our federal government is out of control.  It is not the role of the federal government to regulate the daily lives of the citizens.   It is not the role of the federal government to regulate domestic commerce.  It is not the role of the federal government to tell farmers what to grow, nor tell people what to eat.  It is not the role of the federal government to dictate the education of our children.  It is not the job of the federal government to trespass into state criminal investigations.

It is not the role of the federal government to control our rural or municipal affairs; yet, the President has now established federal councils for both rural affairs (Executive Order 13575—Establishment of the White House Rural Council June 9, 2011)and municipal affairs (Executive Order— Establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities May 1, 2012).  Russia called these councils the “sovyet” and they are the final building blocks to communism.  It is not the role of the Federal government to be the people’s nanny.

It’s not the role of the Federal government to spend this nation into oblivion.  Pardon me if I do not get excited about your current budget debate.  That drama has outlived itself, and I say let the government shut down for a while; we might buy a few more days of life for our Constitution.   I am also not impressed by your resolution on foreign affairs, encouraging “democracies” in foreign nations, while our republic is being actively destroyed by its own government.

It is your role, Congress, to stop the Executive encroachment into the Legislature and it is your duty to stop the Federal encroachment upon individual Liberty.  Our founders took great care when creating a federal government that would be limited and always in submission to the states and the people.  WHEN is Congress going to take a real stand against the destruction of the rights and privileges of this people? Will you wait until it’s too late? Mere “outrage” doesn’t get the job done.  This Congress is pushing the nation to a point of turmoil it has not seen for 150 years.  And make no mistake; each and every one of you will be personally responsible for what will occur.  Are you prepared to live with that responsibility and those consequences?  It will not fall on the shoulders of the President alone and the blame game will not alleviate the suffering of our children when they are so grievously affected.  Yet, we can avoid repeating the mistakes of our history.  But we must act now. We must act decisively.  If not, we will regret our neglect.  We have the opportunity now, but have no guarantee it will be available much longer.

Does Congress truly understand WHY people fled communist nations to come to the greatest nation in the world?  Do you truly know the cost of such sacrifice and what you are supposed to be defending?  You are fooling yourselves if you think one more election is going to fix it.  You don’t have that kind of time.  The blocks are in place, and you have provided the mortar.  Take a stand now.  Not a political stand, but a stand that involves integrity, courage, and resolve.  No more petitions asking the president to stop stealing legislative power.  No more demands that Eric Holder resign.  YOU must do your job and YOU must defend this nation and it’s Constitution from these enemies, both foreign and domestic.   You must:

  1. Put an end to the executive order madness.  Exercise your constitutionally given power, as provided through the checks and balances and separation of powers.  Show this nation that you understand that Legislative power is not to be shared and it is definitely NOT to be taken.
  2. We are not subjects of the United Nations and never intend to be.  Get them out of our business.
  3. If you are unwilling to impeach, defund any person appointed by the executive branch outside Congressional and Constitutional authority.  (i.e. all the Christmas appointments and Czars)
  4. Pick up your Congressional oversight responsibility and shut down these executive regulatory agencies whose only purpose is to “harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
  5. Get control of the immigration in this nation.  We don’t want to see GAO reports telling us that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department cannot agree on the degree of terrorist association a visa applicant must have to render the applicant ineligible.
  6. It is time to indict Eric Holder for the criminal that he is. No more whining, no more demanding for resignations, INDICT him and then FIRE him.
  7. Impeach Elena Kagan.  She is obviously incapable of using the appropriate professional ethic and judgment needed to be a Supreme Court Justice.  Learn from this mistake and actually involve yourselves in the confirmation process.  Your employers are sick to death of political games.
  8. Repeal The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act.  Now. You are supposed to be protecting the rights of the people, not violating them.
  9. End the 4th amendment violations permitted in the Patriot Act.  Now.
  10. Repeal sections 1021 & 1022 of NDAA 2012. It’s not only about habeas corpus, it’s about
    1.  unilateral power given to the president by congress to determine who is a terrorist and then detain them in secret with no probable cause;
    2. unilateral power given to the president by congress to invoke the laws of war during a “hostility”;
    3. unilateral power given to the president by congress to transfer the power under the laws of war to “domestic agencies fighting terrorists”
  11. Get the IRS out of the passport business.
  12. Don’t just read the Constitution, study it.  Not how you studied it in law school, that wasn’t the Constitution, that was Constitutional Law, there is a huge difference.  Those of you who went to Harvard, we understand if you don’t know what the Constitution is, it hasn’t been studied there in years.  May I suggest a course that I know will teach you the truth and is so simple a Congressman can understand it.  I happen to know the teacher personally and I am sure that she would come teach it at her own expense and sacrifice.  Interested? Click Here.

These are some of the demands of your employers; we demand you do your job.  These are the requirements of our founders; they have entrusted us with the Liberty purchased with their lives.  These are the duties imposed upon you by the Constitution of the United States, and your obligations consistent with the oaths you took.  And, these are the times that try men’s souls. How will history remember us? The generation that participated in death of Liberty or the generation that gave our last breath to prosper it? I have made my choice. How will you choose?


KrisAnne Hall


The War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional

Comments Off on The War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional

Hillary Clinton to Libya skeptics: ‘Whose side are you on?’

Comments Off on Hillary Clinton to Libya skeptics: ‘Whose side are you on?’

Hilliary Clinton asked Republicans when discussing the Libyan war kinetic action…”Who’s side are you on?” ….It’s not a matter of “Who’s side are you on?”….it’s a matter of the Constitution and who has the power to declare war! The president has stepped waay over the bounds of a Constitutional war. Obama is acting like a King or dictator in his action on Libya.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya.

She’s asking bluntly, “Whose side are you on?”

Setting up a showdown on Libya, House Republicans agreed Wednesday to vote on dueling measures, one to give President Barack Obama limited authority to continue U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi (the vote on this measure went against Obama’s war without authority and gave him no authority) and the other to cut off funds for military hostilities (was voted down).

Democrats spent the entirety of the Bush years slamming every move he made, and they eventually nominated and elected the most vocal war critic to become president (Obama). During all of those years, Democrats referred over and over again to a line President Bush spoke within days of 9-11 — “You’re either with us or against us in the war against terrorism.” Rejecting that line and the man who spoke it as he led a war for our survival, the Democrats slammed and slammed and slammed him. George Lucas even wrote a version of that line into one of his abysmal Star Wars prequels. That’s how much the left made of that one line.

Now, the Secretary of State is asking Congress, which is mostly just trying to remind the administration that it doesn’t have imperial powers to go to war whenever and wherever it feels like and no matter the cost or implications to national security, “Whose side are you on?” Way to bring people together, top diplomat! You know, they told me that if I voted for John McCain, we would have a heavy handed government stifling reasonable dissent — and they were right!

This obviously isn’t an idle statement, either, but part of the Obama administration’s push back as Libya spirals into a mess: spokesman Jay Carney told skeptics to watch what they say about Libya last week.

This bunch would have positively melted down if they had been on the receiving end of the abuse they hurled at President Bush.

More: Thanks to commenter Black Sabbath –

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
– Senator Barack Hussein Obama. December 20, 2007.

“We are currently doing everything we can to bomb, strafe and use missiles to carry the rebels into power in Libya. We want them to win. We just don’t know who they are.” Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Most of you know that I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake,” Obama said to a crowd at the Springfield, Illinois town square on Feb. 10, 2007.

“Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken and the young lives that could have been. America it is time to start bringing our troops home. It’s time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else’s civil war. That’s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.” Barack Hussein Obama.

Whose side was he on?

Pajamas Media

CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria : Dump the Constitution

Comments Off on CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria : Dump the Constitution

CNN contributor Fareed Zakaria argues that the Constitution is outdated and its principles should be “debated and fixed” to conform with the modern era. He suggests “a set of amendments to modernize the Constitution for the 21st Century.”

It should come as no surprise Fareed Zakaria wants to do away with the Constitution. He is a darling of the Council On Foreign Relations and a Bilderberg member. He also sits on the board of the Trilateral Commission. He is a serious globalist and as such an avowed enemy of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Zakaria’s rants about the Constitution have little to do with updating an old document perceived to now be irrelevant and dysfunctional. Zakaria and his globalist coconspirators are determined to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because the document stands in the way of establishing a one-world  government.

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

Comments Off on 2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

Well here we have a 32 page explanation as to why Obama didn’t need Congressional authority to go to war, use kenetic action against Libya. Bologna, just talking out of both sides of his mouth, like a politician or ‘community organizer’ would do….because it’s plain as the nose on your face and the Constitution or War  Powers Act he DOES need Congressional authority whether he like it or not. Mr. Obama’s excuse was it was necessary for the U.S. and UN’s credibility….come on now is that excuse Constitutional?  Now we hear two of his Top lawyers disagreed with him and what did he do? Overrode them, which is very rare…..that’s because he’s trying to please the UN, not the United States citizens.

President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and theJustice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

Entire article at New York Times

Older Entries